I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
Complete gibberish. Try talking to actual, front line social workers. I have, the head of our local food pantry. First of all, they recommend that people not give any money to these souls as it would be used to buy drugs, alcohol, tobacco, weed, not food. Instead, offer them information about where to go to get food, clothing, shelter, etc. Secondly, these souls are not interested in being housed in the first place because of their mental illness. They have refused treatment and seek solitude in their condition.
Bottom line is that the culture doesn’t have the guts to deal with the situation. Instead it just throws flowery, humanist cliches around, a little money, and lot of hand wringing about the evils of capitalism. These souls need to be handled kindly but firmly, making treatment, counseling, and responsibility mandatory, and with active monitoring. But imagine the protests and outrage if that were to be implemented. Nope, just hang the Albatross around some company’s neck as you suggest Apple DO something.
Having been one of the people who worked with this population (the severely and persistently mentally ill living in the community), it's not so much that they choose to go it alone. The vast majority would love to have a nice, stable place to live and food when they are hungry. Rather, they simply can't function in organized society and, when they do get housing, they often lose it for unacceptable behavior of one sort or another.
A complicating factor for them is that, without any sort of support system (friends, family, job, etc.) a minor problem quickly expands into a major breakdown.
I think your social worker friends may have over simplified the situation. I suspect that they were hospital based rather than actually working in the community with these people. I found that rigid, rule based thinking very common among hospital workers.
* I noticed you mentioned food pantries: They tend to be pretty rigid and rule based too -- they have to be to maintain order. But few of my patients were allowed into the food pantries or shelters. A few were, but very few.
Added; For many the best option were one of the run down, dirty, smelly personal boarding homes with few rules -- except no fighting and don't bust the place up. My very first patient (as a student) was committed to a long term state hospital for the mentally ill after throwing a TV set (the old kind) at his fellow residents in the personal care home. Yeh, those places are deplorable -- but they're better than under a bridge in a snow storm.
They become the fringe people for two reasons. First, the rising cost of living becomes unavoidable to stay in a sheltered house. Second, the endless advances of digital information high-tech is streamlining the work requirement. Many of them lost their jobs and can no longer find a new one. For example, companies are using security system that are connected globally through internet. A centrally located office anywhere in the world can monitor the security of offices very far away. How many jobs are saved or lost in this way?
jcs2305 said: Because the government has clearly failed. California's homeless population has exploded in the last decade or so. It went up by over 10K year over year from Jan 2019- Jan 2020. Apple doing something is sure to draw considerable attention which may give politicians the kick in the ass they need to help with a problem they helped create. Maybe it won't, but with a homeless increase of 24% from 2018-2020 alone and a homeless population of nearly 170K in their state they sure as hell need to do something.
When does the homeless explosion in California start? During the Great Recession. It's not a coincidence. There was a lot of economic damage to people in middle and lower income brackets during that era and now you've got over a years worth of severe economic problems due to a global pandemic.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
This is the responsibility of government, not a private company's like Apple. That is the whole point of paying taxes. The government (Federal and States) spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year on social safety nets and services. Some people are determined to fall through it. Companies out there are begging for workers.
That said, Apple already donates hundreds of millions of dollars a year to various causes.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
Complete gibberish. Try talking to actual, front line social workers. I have, the head of our local food pantry. First of all, they recommend that people not give any money to these souls as it would be used to buy drugs, alcohol, tobacco, weed, not food. Instead, offer them information about where to go to get food, clothing, shelter, etc. Secondly, these souls are not interested in being housed in the first place because of their mental illness. They have refused treatment and seek solitude in their condition.
Bottom line is that the culture doesn’t have the guts to deal with the situation. Instead it just throws flowery, humanist cliches around, a little money, and lot of hand wringing about the evils of capitalism. These souls need to be handled kindly but firmly, making treatment, counseling, and responsibility mandatory, and with active monitoring. But imagine the protests and outrage if that were to be implemented. Nope, just hang the Albatross around some company’s neck as you suggest Apple DO something.
Having been one of the people who worked with this population (the severely and persistently mentally ill living in the community), it's not so much that they choose to go it alone. The vast majority would love to have a nice, stable place to live and food when they are hungry. Rather, they simply can't function in organized society and, when they do get housing, they often lose it for unacceptable behavior of one sort or another.
A complicating factor for them is that, without any sort of support system (friends, family, job, etc.) a minor problem quickly expands into a major breakdown.
I think your social worker friends may have over simplified the situation. I suspect that they were hospital based rather than actually working in the community with these people. I found that rigid, rule based thinking very common among hospital workers.
* I noticed you mentioned food pantries: They tend to be pretty rigid and rule based too -- they have to be to maintain order. But few of my patients were allowed into the food pantries or shelters. A few were, but very few.
Added; For many the best option were one of the run down, dirty, smelly personal boarding homes with few rules -- except no fighting and don't bust the place up. My very first patient (as a student) was committed to a long term state hospital for the mentally ill after throwing a TV set (the old kind) at his fellow residents in the personal care home. Yeh, those places are deplorable -- but they're better than under a bridge in a snow storm.
They become the fringe people for two reasons. First, the rising cost of living becomes unavoidable to stay in a sheltered house. Second, the endless advances of digital information high-tech is streamlining the work requirement. Many of them lost their jobs and can no longer find a new one. For example, companies are using security system that are connected globally through internet. A centrally located office anywhere in the world can monitor the security of offices very far away. How many jobs are saved or lost in this way?
Yes, that and mental illness (along with addictions) are the main causes of homelessness in America.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
This is, of course, because much of their income isn’t from what’s counted as earned, taxable income. So they siphon off money that’s not taxed, and then of course as you say insist that the hoarded wealth not be taxed, either.
The flight attendant instructs you to put your mask on first before helping others. There is still an expectation that you then help the others, not inhale deeply while you shrug and claim there’s no more oxygen to go around.
Meanwhile three multi billionaires are having their own little private space race. We need to go back the tax structure that was in place during the Eisenhower administration. The economic playing field needs to be tilted towards the bottom, not the top. If we did, those at the top would still be at the top and "filthy rich", but the country they live in, the USA would be politically more stable and a look less like a third world nation. A democracy is far healthier when wealth and power is more widely distributed and in the hands of many rather than the hands of the few, as in the 0.001%. Call out to you Fox "News" types, this does not make me a socialist or communist or Marxist. Markets are powerful and useful forces and absolutely are a good thing, but just like fission reactions, combustion, or even horses, they must be harnessed and directed, or they run wild and kill people. Government owning and operating the means of production is just as bad or worse than our current oligarchic plutocratic capitalism. The USA needs to ask itself exactly what kind of free enterprise system that it sets up, should it be more egalitarian or ultra elitist as it is now?
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
This is, of course, because much of their income isn’t from what’s counted as earned, taxable income. So they siphon off money that’s not taxed, and then of course as you say insist that the hoarded wealth not be taxed, either.
The flight attendant instructs you to put your mask on first before helping others. There is still an expectation that you then help the others, not inhale deeply while you shrug and claim there’s no more oxygen to go around.
The fact that you don't even understand that one do not pay out 100% of what they earn in taxes, shows you have very little understanding on how taxes work. You can't be that mathematically challenged to not understand that the total income earned by the 1% and percent of the total taxes they paid, are calculated from two difference sources. The percent of total taxes they pay accounts for ALL income taxes collected, from every tax payer. In other words, 99% of all the taxpayers, pays 60% of the total taxes revenue collected by the IRS. The 1% pays there other 40%.
If you are so sure that the 1% are evading taxes, why don't you report them to the IRS. I'm sure they would like to know what you know. You would want to do your part to make sure the 1% are doing their part to help the bottom 50% ... right. The IRS don't lose tax evasion cases too often.
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
How do you figure they'd be losing wealth? You realise that 20% of income and 40% of income taxes are different, right? You can't just compare the percentage number and conclude that because the tax number is bigger than the income number that they're losing money.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
This is, of course, because much of their income isn’t from what’s counted as earned, taxable income. So they siphon off money that’s not taxed, and then of course as you say insist that the hoarded wealth not be taxed, either.
The flight attendant instructs you to put your mask on first before helping others. There is still an expectation that you then help the others, not inhale deeply while you shrug and claim there’s no more oxygen to go around.
The fact that you don't even understand that one do not pay out 100% of what they earn in taxes, shows you have very little understanding on how taxes work. You can't be that mathematically challenged to not understand that the total income earned by the 1% and percent of the total taxes they paid, are calculated from two difference sources. The percent of total taxes they pay accounts for ALL income taxes collected, from every tax payer. In other words, 99% of all the taxpayers, pays 60% of the total taxes revenue collected by the IRS. The 1% pays there other 40%.
If you are so sure that the 1% are evading taxes, why don't you report them to the IRS. I'm sure they would like to know what you know. You would want to do your part to make sure the 1% are doing their part to help the bottom 50% ... right. The IRS don't lose tax evasion cases too often.
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
You don’t have to evade taxes illegally when you can rent politicians to pass tax laws to help you avoid them.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 245 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
Fixed it for you.
That mostly started with the American indsutrial revolution of the late 19th century -- prior to that the U.S. was mostly an agrarian society. Since then its gone back and forth -- between the likes of Hoover, Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan. But since Reagan its been mostly promoting the top 1%
Nope. Elected officials have, and always will “help” the top 1% over the bottom 1%. Sorry. They will always favor those who pay taxes, vote, employ constituents, and contribute to reelection efforts. And not just in America, btw. Some administrations may “help” the bottom 1% more than others, but their efforts will always be the equivalent of scraps compared to the favors they provide to the top.
FYI: There have always been homeless people. It’s not some modern phenomenon that suddenly began when the industrial revolution started.
I know you’re going to dig in here and try to rationalize your flippant remark, because you are completely unable to admit when you’re wrong, when someone else makes a valid point, or even when someone else is (gasp) right. That’s cool, but I won’t see whatever you conjure up because I’m moving on from this thread. Just know, my argument is with that one particular statement, and not with your past experiences with, or thoughts on, mental health.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
This is, of course, because much of their income isn’t from what’s counted as earned, taxable income. So they siphon off money that’s not taxed, and then of course as you say insist that the hoarded wealth not be taxed, either.
The flight attendant instructs you to put your mask on first before helping others. There is still an expectation that you then help the others, not inhale deeply while you shrug and claim there’s no more oxygen to go around.
The fact that you don't even understand that one do not pay out 100% of what they earn in taxes, shows you have very little understanding on how taxes work. You can't be that mathematically challenged to not understand that the total income earned by the 1% and percent of the total taxes they paid, are calculated from two difference sources. The percent of total taxes they pay accounts for ALL income taxes collected, from every tax payer. In other words, 99% of all the taxpayers, pays 60% of the total taxes revenue collected by the IRS. The 1% pays there other 40%.
If you are so sure that the 1% are evading taxes, why don't you report them to the IRS. I'm sure they would like to know what you know. You would want to do your part to make sure the 1% are doing their part to help the bottom 50% ... right. The IRS don't lose tax evasion cases too often.
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
You don’t have to evade taxes illegally when you can rent politicians to pass tax laws to help you avoid them.
Well, the 1% are not getting their moneys worth. They are still paying 40% of all the Fed income taxes collected, while only earning 20% of the total income. Maybe you can show then how its done. They are worst off than in the 60's, when they were earning 9% of the total income while paying just 13% of the total taxes.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 245 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
Fixed it for you.
That mostly started with the American indsutrial revolution of the late 19th century -- prior to that the U.S. was mostly an agrarian society. Since then its gone back and forth -- between the likes of Hoover, Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan. But since Reagan its been mostly promoting the top 1%
Nope. Elected officials have, and always will “help” the top 1% over the bottom 1%. Sorry. They will always favor those who pay taxes, vote, employ constituents, and contribute to reelection efforts. And not just in America, btw. Some administrations may “help” the bottom 1% more than others, but their efforts will always be the equivalent of scraps compared to the favors they provide to the top.
FYI: There have always been homeless people. It’s not some modern phenomenon that suddenly began when the industrial revolution started.
I know you’re going to dig in here and try to rationalize your flippant remark, because you are completely unable to admit when you’re wrong, when someone else makes a valid point, or even when someone else is (gasp) right. That’s cool, but I won’t see whatever you conjure up because I’m moving on from this thread. Just know, my argument is with that one particular statement, and not with your past experiences with, or thoughts on, mental health.
If that were true we would not have what the FauxNews crowd now call "socialist" things like: Public schools, unemployment compensation, Social Security, Disability, SNAP, school lunch programs, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc., etc., etc.,....
it's easy to claim "all politicians are the same" or "It's always been this way". It's popular on both the far left and the far right. But its bullshit.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
This is, of course, because much of their income isn’t from what’s counted as earned, taxable income. So they siphon off money that’s not taxed, and then of course as you say insist that the hoarded wealth not be taxed, either.
The flight attendant instructs you to put your mask on first before helping others. There is still an expectation that you then help the others, not inhale deeply while you shrug and claim there’s no more oxygen to go around.
The fact that you don't even understand that one do not pay out 100% of what they earn in taxes, shows you have very little understanding on how taxes work. You can't be that mathematically challenged to not understand that the total income earned by the 1% and percent of the total taxes they paid, are calculated from two difference sources. The percent of total taxes they pay accounts for ALL income taxes collected, from every tax payer. In other words, 99% of all the taxpayers, pays 60% of the total taxes revenue collected by the IRS. The 1% pays there other 40%.
If you are so sure that the 1% are evading taxes, why don't you report them to the IRS. I'm sure they would like to know what you know. You would want to do your part to make sure the 1% are doing their part to help the bottom 50% ... right. The IRS don't lose tax evasion cases too often.
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
You don’t have to evade taxes illegally when you can rent politicians to pass tax laws to help you avoid them.
Well, the 1% are not getting their moneys worth. They are still paying 40% of all the Fed income taxes collected, while only earning 20% of the total income. Maybe you can show then how its done. They are worst off than in the 60's, when they were earning 9% of the total income while paying just 13% of the total taxes.
In 1960 GDP of the USA was $3.23t, so 9% of that is about $290b going to the 1% In 2020 GDP of the USA was $18.79t, so 20% of that is about $3.76t going to the 1%
A 1200% nominal increase, inflation adjusted (compared to a 500% increase in GDP). Even with an increased tax burden, I'd be very surprised if they're collectively worse off.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
This is, of course, because much of their income isn’t from what’s counted as earned, taxable income. So they siphon off money that’s not taxed, and then of course as you say insist that the hoarded wealth not be taxed, either.
The flight attendant instructs you to put your mask on first before helping others. There is still an expectation that you then help the others, not inhale deeply while you shrug and claim there’s no more oxygen to go around.
The fact that you don't even understand that one do not pay out 100% of what they earn in taxes, shows you have very little understanding on how taxes work. You can't be that mathematically challenged to not understand that the total income earned by the 1% and percent of the total taxes they paid, are calculated from two difference sources. The percent of total taxes they pay accounts for ALL income taxes collected, from every tax payer. In other words, 99% of all the taxpayers, pays 60% of the total taxes revenue collected by the IRS. The 1% pays there other 40%.
If you are so sure that the 1% are evading taxes, why don't you report them to the IRS. I'm sure they would like to know what you know. You would want to do your part to make sure the 1% are doing their part to help the bottom 50% ... right. The IRS don't lose tax evasion cases too often.
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
You don’t have to evade taxes illegally when you can rent politicians to pass tax laws to help you avoid them.
Well, the 1% are not getting their moneys worth. They are still paying 40% of all the Fed income taxes collected, while only earning 20% of the total income. Maybe you can show then how its done. They are worst off than in the 60's, when they were earning 9% of the total income while paying just 13% of the total taxes.
In 1960 GDP of the USA was $3.23t, so 9% of that is about $290b going to the 1% In 2020 GDP of the USA was $18.79t, so 20% of that is about $3.76t going to the 1%
A 1200% nominal increase, inflation adjusted (compared to a 500% increase in GDP). Even with an increased tax burden, I'd be very surprised if they're collectively worse off.
GDP is not the total earned income that is taxable by the IRS. The total income is all the reported income from all of the tax returns (for the year).
In 1960, the total income was about $316M and total income taxes the IRS collected on that was $40M. Which meant the 1% earned $28M (9% of $316M) and paid $5.2M (13% of $40M) in taxes.
In 2018 the total income was about $11.6T and the total income taxes the IRS collect on that was $1.5T. Which meant the 1% earned 2.4T (20% of $11.5T) and paid $.6T (40% of $1.5T) in taxes.
(This chart gives you a better idea on how this is all calculated, as it includes all the percentile, not just the 1%)
In 1960, the 1% paid an average tax rate of 18.5%. Even though the top marginal tax bracket was 91%. In 2018, the 1% paid an average effective tax rate of 25.4%.
The 1% consist of 1.4M "households" not individuals. The 1% are the top 1% of tax returns based on reported income. A "household" could consist of 2 individuals filing a joint return. So the top 1.4M tax returns, out of 140M returns, were responsible for paying 40% of the taxes, in 2018.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 245 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
Fixed it for you.
That mostly started with the American indsutrial revolution of the late 19th century -- prior to that the U.S. was mostly an agrarian society. Since then its gone back and forth -- between the likes of Hoover, Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan. But since Reagan its been mostly promoting the top 1%
Nope. Elected officials have, and always will “help” the top 1% over the bottom 1%. Sorry. They will always favor those who pay taxes, vote, employ constituents, and contribute to reelection efforts. And not just in America, btw. Some administrations may “help” the bottom 1% more than others, but their efforts will always be the equivalent of scraps compared to the favors they provide to the top.
FYI: There have always been homeless people. It’s not some modern phenomenon that suddenly began when the industrial revolution started.
I know you’re going to dig in here and try to rationalize your flippant remark, because you are completely unable to admit when you’re wrong, when someone else makes a valid point, or even when someone else is (gasp) right. That’s cool, but I won’t see whatever you conjure up because I’m moving on from this thread. Just know, my argument is with that one particular statement, and not with your past experiences with, or thoughts on, mental health.
If that were true we would not have what the FauxNews crowd now call "socialist" things like: Public schools, unemployment compensation, Social Security, Disability, SNAP, school lunch programs, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc., etc., etc.,....
it's easy to claim "all politicians are the same" or "It's always been this way". It's popular on both the far left and the far right. But its bullshit.
President Reagan did two tax cuts. One in 1981, the top tax rate fell from 70% to 50%. The second one in 1986, the top income tax rate fell from 50% to 28%. This opened the floodgate for the top 1% people. When the top rate is 70%, there is little good for company board of directors to give very high salary for CEO. Most of the money will go to tax. The income gap between CEO and employees was narrow before. After 1986, US companies start raising CEO salary much higher than average employee. Further, in silicon valley, the startups invented stock options. The stock options were not taxed before selling. This further enriched the startup CEOs. In 2000, there are only one or two billionaires. Today, a startup going public without making money the CEO could become an instant billionaire. And the wealthiest billionaire has a fortune over one hundred billionaire.
From capitalism point of view, this is good. Because money in capitalism is like energy in physics, it can do work. If you have a good economic idea, you cannot do it alone like the Chinese old story of a foolish old man trying to move a mountain away. You need many people. Without money, people cannot work for you without pay. They need money to buy food.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
This is, of course, because much of their income isn’t from what’s counted as earned, taxable income. So they siphon off money that’s not taxed, and then of course as you say insist that the hoarded wealth not be taxed, either.
The flight attendant instructs you to put your mask on first before helping others. There is still an expectation that you then help the others, not inhale deeply while you shrug and claim there’s no more oxygen to go around.
The fact that you don't even understand that one do not pay out 100% of what they earn in taxes, shows you have very little understanding on how taxes work. You can't be that mathematically challenged to not understand that the total income earned by the 1% and percent of the total taxes they paid, are calculated from two difference sources. The percent of total taxes they pay accounts for ALL income taxes collected, from every tax payer. In other words, 99% of all the taxpayers, pays 60% of the total taxes revenue collected by the IRS. The 1% pays there other 40%.
If you are so sure that the 1% are evading taxes, why don't you report them to the IRS. I'm sure they would like to know what you know. You would want to do your part to make sure the 1% are doing their part to help the bottom 50% ... right. The IRS don't lose tax evasion cases too often.
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
You don’t have to evade taxes illegally when you can rent politicians to pass tax laws to help you avoid them.
Well, the 1% are not getting their moneys worth. They are still paying 40% of all the Fed income taxes collected, while only earning 20% of the total income. Maybe you can show then how its done. They are worst off than in the 60's, when they were earning 9% of the total income while paying just 13% of the total taxes.
In 1960 GDP of the USA was $3.23t, so 9% of that is about $290b going to the 1% In 2020 GDP of the USA was $18.79t, so 20% of that is about $3.76t going to the 1%
A 1200% nominal increase, inflation adjusted (compared to a 500% increase in GDP). Even with an increased tax burden, I'd be very surprised if they're collectively worse off.
GDP is not the total earned income that is taxable by the IRS. The total income is all the reported income from all of the tax returns (for the year).
In 1960, the total income was about $316M and total income taxes the IRS collected on that was $40M. Which meant the 1% earned $28M (9% of $316M) and paid $5.2M (13% of $40M) in taxes.
In 2018 the total income was about $11.6T and the total income taxes the IRS collect on that was $1.5T. Which meant the 1% earned 2.4T (20% of $11.5T) and paid $.6T (40% of $1.5T) in taxes.
(This chart gives you a better idea on how this is all calculated, as it includes all the percentile, not just the 1%)
In 1960, the 1% paid an average tax rate of 18.5%. Even though the top marginal tax bracket was 91%. In 2018, the 1% paid an average effective tax rate of 25.4%.
The 1% consist of 1.4M "households" not individuals. The 1% are the top 1% of tax returns based on reported income. A "household" could consist of 2 individuals filing a joint return. So the top 1.4M tax returns, out of 140M returns, were responsible for paying 40% of the taxes, in 2018.
Ok, but where's the conclusion that they're worse off? Unless you inflation adjust it and compare the take home, I don't see how you can begin to conclude that. The percentages of income themselves don't mean much when there is so much more income being earned.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
This is, of course, because much of their income isn’t from what’s counted as earned, taxable income. So they siphon off money that’s not taxed, and then of course as you say insist that the hoarded wealth not be taxed, either.
The flight attendant instructs you to put your mask on first before helping others. There is still an expectation that you then help the others, not inhale deeply while you shrug and claim there’s no more oxygen to go around.
The fact that you don't even understand that one do not pay out 100% of what they earn in taxes, shows you have very little understanding on how taxes work. You can't be that mathematically challenged to not understand that the total income earned by the 1% and percent of the total taxes they paid, are calculated from two difference sources. The percent of total taxes they pay accounts for ALL income taxes collected, from every tax payer. In other words, 99% of all the taxpayers, pays 60% of the total taxes revenue collected by the IRS. The 1% pays there other 40%.
If you are so sure that the 1% are evading taxes, why don't you report them to the IRS. I'm sure they would like to know what you know. You would want to do your part to make sure the 1% are doing their part to help the bottom 50% ... right. The IRS don't lose tax evasion cases too often.
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
You don’t have to evade taxes illegally when you can rent politicians to pass tax laws to help you avoid them.
Well, the 1% are not getting their moneys worth. They are still paying 40% of all the Fed income taxes collected, while only earning 20% of the total income. Maybe you can show then how its done. They are worst off than in the 60's, when they were earning 9% of the total income while paying just 13% of the total taxes.
In 1960 GDP of the USA was $3.23t, so 9% of that is about $290b going to the 1% In 2020 GDP of the USA was $18.79t, so 20% of that is about $3.76t going to the 1%
A 1200% nominal increase, inflation adjusted (compared to a 500% increase in GDP). Even with an increased tax burden, I'd be very surprised if they're collectively worse off.
GDP is not the total earned income that is taxable by the IRS. The total income is all the reported income from all of the tax returns (for the year).
In 1960, the total income was about $316M and total income taxes the IRS collected on that was $40M. Which meant the 1% earned $28M (9% of $316M) and paid $5.2M (13% of $40M) in taxes.
In 2018 the total income was about $11.6T and the total income taxes the IRS collect on that was $1.5T. Which meant the 1% earned 2.4T (20% of $11.5T) and paid $.6T (40% of $1.5T) in taxes.
(This chart gives you a better idea on how this is all calculated, as it includes all the percentile, not just the 1%)
In 1960, the 1% paid an average tax rate of 18.5%. Even though the top marginal tax bracket was 91%. In 2018, the 1% paid an average effective tax rate of 25.4%.
The 1% consist of 1.4M "households" not individuals. The 1% are the top 1% of tax returns based on reported income. A "household" could consist of 2 individuals filing a joint return. So the top 1.4M tax returns, out of 140M returns, were responsible for paying 40% of the taxes, in 2018.
Ok, but where's the conclusion that they're worse off? Unless you inflation adjust it and compare the take home, I don't see how you can begin to conclude that. The percentages of income themselves don't mean much when there is so much more income being earned.
Zoom all the way out to the big picture for clarity. In 1989, the top 1% owned 23.4% of the wealth in the US and the bottom 50% had 3.7%. That's a significant disparity already, right? By this year, the top 1% now own 32.1% of all the wealth in the US and the bottom 50% have dropped to 2%. The rich are richer and the poor are poorer, full stop. The rest is obfuscation and distraction. Labor productivity in the US has grown for that entire period (and for decades before). So as the US economy grows and US workers continually become more productive, somehow their share of the pie from all that work has gone down.
How can that be? Income growth at the top has skyrocketed; for everybody else, not so much. Since the 80s, we keep hearing about this "trickle down" bullsh*t (see the oxygen mask analogy offered up-thread), that cutting taxes for the "job creators" will benefit the folks at the bottom, because the job creators are going to use that windfall to create great jobs. Instead, they spend money on politicians assuring they're not taxed on significant portions of their income, that they're not prevented from transferring wealth uphill through predatory practices in the finance and other industries, and that those at the very bottom, earning minimum wage, don't see anything like the wage growth the folks at the top have. As those folks at the top have seen their incomes increase by double digits in recent years, the federal minimum wage has increased by 0.0% in the last decade. Adjusted for inflation, minimum wage is actually worth $1.90 per hour less than it was the last time minimum wage was raised in 2009. So when someone starts tossing around figures to claim the top 1% are so much more burdened now, it's a bunch of fluff. Those folks are not hurting. The people who work full time and still can't afford a place to live? They're not doing so well.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 245 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
Fixed it for you.
That mostly started with the American indsutrial revolution of the late 19th century -- prior to that the U.S. was mostly an agrarian society. Since then its gone back and forth -- between the likes of Hoover, Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan. But since Reagan its been mostly promoting the top 1%
Nope. Elected officials have, and always will “help” the top 1% over the bottom 1%. Sorry. They will always favor those who pay taxes, vote, employ constituents, and contribute to reelection efforts. And not just in America, btw. Some administrations may “help” the bottom 1% more than others, but their efforts will always be the equivalent of scraps compared to the favors they provide to the top.
FYI: There have always been homeless people. It’s not some modern phenomenon that suddenly began when the industrial revolution started.
I know you’re going to dig in here and try to rationalize your flippant remark, because you are completely unable to admit when you’re wrong, when someone else makes a valid point, or even when someone else is (gasp) right. That’s cool, but I won’t see whatever you conjure up because I’m moving on from this thread. Just know, my argument is with that one particular statement, and not with your past experiences with, or thoughts on, mental health.
If that were true we would not have what the FauxNews crowd now call "socialist" things like: Public schools, unemployment compensation, Social Security, Disability, SNAP, school lunch programs, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc., etc., etc.,....
it's easy to claim "all politicians are the same" or "It's always been this way". It's popular on both the far left and the far right. But its bullshit.
President Reagan did two tax cuts. One in 1981, the top tax rate fell from 70% to 50%. The second one in 1986, the top income tax rate fell from 50% to 28%. This opened the floodgate for the top 1% people. When the top rate is 70%, there is little good for company board of directors to give very high salary for CEO. Most of the money will go to tax. The income gap between CEO and employees was narrow before. After 1986, US companies start raising CEO salary much higher than average employee. Further, in silicon valley, the startups invented stock options. The stock options were not taxed before selling. This further enriched the startup CEOs. In 2000, there are only one or two billionaires. Today, a startup going public without making money the CEO could become an instant billionaire. And the wealthiest billionaire has a fortune over one hundred billionaire.
From capitalism point of view, this is good. Because money in capitalism is like energy in physics, it can do work. If you have a good economic idea, you cannot do it alone like the Chinese old story of a foolish old man trying to move a mountain away. You need many people. Without money, people cannot work for you without pay. They need money to buy food.
Hey! They told me you were a dirty Chinese Commie!
Where'd you learn all that about America, Reagan and capitalism?
(just kidding!)
BTW, as you say, money in capitalism CAN do work. Unfortunately, these days it is not being used build factories but to buy back stock -- which suggests that capitalism in America cannot find a productive use for its money. That's not good.
It is easy to fix. Capitalism reward maximum profit. Unfortunately all politicians don't know how to do this to divert money to doings that are really good. Apple under Jobs was doing the right things including contracting out Foxconn to assemble iPhones. This enables Apple to quickly becomes the most profitable companies. Unfortunately a lot of Apple haters and China haters are assembling all kinds of lies to break Apple. It is as sad as Apple let go Jobs in the 80s. I am a strong follower of Apple because i feel Apple is the most honorable company. I would not be hurt by using Apple products.
I feel like this is a really great opportunity for Apple to use its endless wealth to truly help their neighborhood. If Apple does absolutely nothing, scorns the homeless, and forces them away, they would have a massive PR problem. This is honestly kind of a marketing gift. Spend a chunk of change (which is pennies to Apple), do something magical with that Apple swirl on top, and poof. You demonstrate all your values, put your money where your mouth is, AND directly help the lives of the people in your own back yard. It’s a win/win and would cost them nothing.
I don't understand why a commercial company should step up to fix the government's neglect?
For the last 20-40 years the U.S. government has been more concerned about helping the the top 1% rather than the bottom 1%.
But, what are they to do?
Aiding those who are already homeless is like filling a bottomless pit.
It takes resolving the societal issues that caused them to be homeless. But generally we either don't know what those issues are or are in denial over them.
One big cause, for instance, is the closure of state mental institutions and "freeing those inmates" -- many of whom ended up living under a bridge. Should we reopen those institutions? The one by me was self contained and self sustaining and used to house 4,000 patients and it supplied them with jobs in the greenhouse, farm, bakery, butcher shop, etc...
That institution was originally opened in the early 19th century to house what we today call "homeless" but morphed into being strictly a long tern care mental hospital -- caring for those who could not care for themselves. It served a purpose. But few would argue in favor of reopening it. So, now we complain about the "homeless problem".
It's like if there's an emergency on an airline and the oxygen mask drops downs. What did the flight attendant tell you to do? Put on your mask first, before helping your child or others put on theirs. Why, because you would be unless to them if you passed out first.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
You claim that the 1% only earns 20% of income, but pays 40% of taxes collected makes no sense, of course. If that were the entire formula, then the top 1% would be losing wealth as they paid out double their fair share in taxes. Yet somehow, wealth continually becomes more concentrated at that top end.
This is, of course, because much of their income isn’t from what’s counted as earned, taxable income. So they siphon off money that’s not taxed, and then of course as you say insist that the hoarded wealth not be taxed, either.
The flight attendant instructs you to put your mask on first before helping others. There is still an expectation that you then help the others, not inhale deeply while you shrug and claim there’s no more oxygen to go around.
The fact that you don't even understand that one do not pay out 100% of what they earn in taxes, shows you have very little understanding on how taxes work. You can't be that mathematically challenged to not understand that the total income earned by the 1% and percent of the total taxes they paid, are calculated from two difference sources. The percent of total taxes they pay accounts for ALL income taxes collected, from every tax payer. In other words, 99% of all the taxpayers, pays 60% of the total taxes revenue collected by the IRS. The 1% pays there other 40%.
If you are so sure that the 1% are evading taxes, why don't you report them to the IRS. I'm sure they would like to know what you know. You would want to do your part to make sure the 1% are doing their part to help the bottom 50% ... right. The IRS don't lose tax evasion cases too often.
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
You don’t have to evade taxes illegally when you can rent politicians to pass tax laws to help you avoid them.
Well, the 1% are not getting their moneys worth. They are still paying 40% of all the Fed income taxes collected, while only earning 20% of the total income. Maybe you can show then how its done. They are worst off than in the 60's, when they were earning 9% of the total income while paying just 13% of the total taxes.
In 1960 GDP of the USA was $3.23t, so 9% of that is about $290b going to the 1% In 2020 GDP of the USA was $18.79t, so 20% of that is about $3.76t going to the 1%
A 1200% nominal increase, inflation adjusted (compared to a 500% increase in GDP). Even with an increased tax burden, I'd be very surprised if they're collectively worse off.
GDP is not the total earned income that is taxable by the IRS. The total income is all the reported income from all of the tax returns (for the year).
In 1960, the total income was about $316M and total income taxes the IRS collected on that was $40M. Which meant the 1% earned $28M (9% of $316M) and paid $5.2M (13% of $40M) in taxes.
In 2018 the total income was about $11.6T and the total income taxes the IRS collect on that was $1.5T. Which meant the 1% earned 2.4T (20% of $11.5T) and paid $.6T (40% of $1.5T) in taxes.
(This chart gives you a better idea on how this is all calculated, as it includes all the percentile, not just the 1%)
In 1960, the 1% paid an average tax rate of 18.5%. Even though the top marginal tax bracket was 91%. In 2018, the 1% paid an average effective tax rate of 25.4%.
The 1% consist of 1.4M "households" not individuals. The 1% are the top 1% of tax returns based on reported income. A "household" could consist of 2 individuals filing a joint return. So the top 1.4M tax returns, out of 140M returns, were responsible for paying 40% of the taxes, in 2018.
Ok, but where's the conclusion that they're worse off? Unless you inflation adjust it and compare the take home, I don't see how you can begin to conclude that. The percentages of income themselves don't mean much when there is so much more income being earned.
This was in response to @AppleZulu claim that the 1% are ......... buying off politicians in order to avoid paying taxes. Obvious over the past 40 years, they have been paying an increasing percentage of the total tax bill, while earning far less of the percentage of the total income. The total amount of their income, has not been keeping up with the increasing percent of the total income tax revenue collected. Their average effective tax has remained steady at about 24% to 28% over this time. It's not about the income they keep but how in the past 40 years, they have been increasing paying more of the total income taxes collected. So where is this .... the 1% has been paying off politicians, in order to avoid taxes? Paying tax wise, the 1% are worst off now, than in 1960.
Here's graph showing the top marginal tax rate and total share of the tax burden from 1986 to 2016. You will find that most historic data of this kind stops at 1986. That's because of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, that makes comparing data from earlier years not correlating 1 to 1.
Even though the top marginal tax rate was 50% in 1986 and dropped to 37% in 2016, the 1% total burden of the income tax collected went from 25% to 39%. This shows that the lowering of the top marginal tax rate did not result in less taxes collected from the 1%. And this is only Fed income taxes. Unless they live in a State with no State income tax, they can be expected to pay another 8% to 12% of their income in State income taxes.
The 1% did not go from paying 25% of the total income taxes collected in 1986 to 40% in 2016, because the government raised their taxes. And remember, they are now paying 40% of the $2T in total income taxes collected. While in 1986, they were only paying 25% of the $380B total income taxes collected. The government did this by disallowing deductions and closing loopholes that the 1% were using to lower their taxable income.
This sound like paying their "fair share" to me. Of course I'm not using the liberal meaning of "fair share". Which would be ...... "more .... much more."
The "Golden Age" of the rich paying their "fair share" in taxes was not in the 60's, it occurring now.
Comments
That said, Apple already donates hundreds of millions of dollars a year to various causes.
Yes, that and mental illness (along with addictions) are the main causes of homelessness in America.
Well, the 1% now pays about 40% of the Fed income taxes collected. Even thought they only earn 20% of the total income. In 1960, the top 1% paid 13% of the total tax collected while earning 9% of the total income. Even though in the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was higher. The government needs for the 1% to earn more, it's the most efficient way of generating tax revenue. The government depends on the tax revenue from top 1% to help the bottom 50%. And this is just Federal income tax and don't include any State income taxes.
https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/t054-c000-s001-how-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html
Some seems to think that the top marginal tax rate should be high enough, so to punish the rich for making what they consider, too much money. That is not the case, the top marginal tax rate (all marginal tax rate for that matter) is set to maximize tax revenue in each bracket. It is based on the Laffer curve. if the marginal tax rate is set too low or too high, the government will lose tax revenue. What is the benefit of taxing the 1% at 60% and collecting less in tax revenue, that is needed to help the bottom 50%. Besides making you feel better about it?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
Plus many seem to think that to be in the top 1% one need to have an annual income of way over $1M a year and are living like Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg and the others in the .01%. That is not the case, in the US all it takes is an annual income of about $750,000 (or $515,000 AGI) to be in the 1%. The average annual income off the 1% is about $1.7M. but that is heavy skewed upward by the top .01%. The Bezo, Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Buffet, etc.. If one were to exclude the income of the top .01%, from the 1%, the average income of the 1% would drop considerably.
https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never-mind-1-percent-lets-talk-about-001-percent
And for tax purpose, annual income should be the only way to determine the tax rate. No way should anyone be taxed based on the wealth, that have already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. A person earning $100K a year with $1M in an IRA should pay the same tax rate on that $100K, as a person earning $100K a year with $10K in an IRA. The current value of my stock portfolio or the value of my mortgage fee home, should not be used to determine the marginal tax rate of my annual income.
We need to go back the tax structure that was in place during the Eisenhower administration. The economic playing field needs to be tilted towards the bottom, not the top. If we did, those at the top would still be at the top and "filthy rich", but the country they live in, the USA would be politically more stable and a look less like a third world nation. A democracy is far healthier when wealth and power is more widely distributed and in the hands of many rather than the hands of the few, as in the 0.001%.
Call out to you Fox "News" types, this does not make me a socialist or communist or Marxist. Markets are powerful and useful forces and absolutely are a good thing, but just like fission reactions, combustion, or even horses, they must be harnessed and directed, or they run wild and kill people. Government owning and operating the means of production is just as bad or worse than our current oligarchic plutocratic capitalism. The USA needs to ask itself exactly what kind of free enterprise system that it sets up, should it be more egalitarian or ultra elitist as it is now?
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
The fact that you don't even understand that one do not pay out 100% of what they earn in taxes, shows you have very little understanding on how taxes work. You can't be that mathematically challenged to not understand that the total income earned by the 1% and percent of the total taxes they paid, are calculated from two difference sources. The percent of total taxes they pay accounts for ALL income taxes collected, from every tax payer. In other words, 99% of all the taxpayers, pays 60% of the total taxes revenue collected by the IRS. The 1% pays there other 40%.
If you are so sure that the 1% are evading taxes, why don't you report them to the IRS. I'm sure they would like to know what you know. You would want to do your part to make sure the 1% are doing their part to help the bottom 50% ... right. The IRS don't lose tax evasion cases too often.
https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives
The 1 percent
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
In 1960 GDP of the USA was $3.23t, so 9% of that is about $290b going to the 1%
In 2020 GDP of the USA was $18.79t, so 20% of that is about $3.76t going to the 1%
A 1200% nominal increase, inflation adjusted (compared to a 500% increase in GDP). Even with an increased tax burden, I'd be very surprised if they're collectively worse off.
In 1960, the total income was about $316M and total income taxes the IRS collected on that was $40M. Which meant the 1% earned $28M (9% of $316M) and paid $5.2M (13% of $40M) in taxes.
(need to see chart on page 144)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/16-05intax.pdf
In 2018 the total income was about $11.6T and the total income taxes the IRS collect on that was $1.5T. Which meant the 1% earned 2.4T (20% of $11.5T) and paid $.6T (40% of $1.5T) in taxes.
(This chart gives you a better idea on how this is all calculated, as it includes all the percentile, not just the 1%)
https://taxfoundation.org/federal-income-tax-data-2021/
In 1960, the 1% paid an average tax rate of 18.5%. Even though the top marginal tax bracket was 91%. In 2018, the 1% paid an average effective tax rate of 25.4%.
The 1% consist of 1.4M "households" not individuals. The 1% are the top 1% of tax returns based on reported income. A "household" could consist of 2 individuals filing a joint return. So the top 1.4M tax returns, out of 140M returns, were responsible for paying 40% of the taxes, in 2018.
From capitalism point of view, this is good. Because money in capitalism is like energy in physics, it can do work. If you have a good economic idea, you cannot do it alone like the Chinese old story of a foolish old man trying to move a mountain away. You need many people. Without money, people cannot work for you without pay. They need money to buy food.
How can that be? Income growth at the top has skyrocketed; for everybody else, not so much. Since the 80s, we keep hearing about this "trickle down" bullsh*t (see the oxygen mask analogy offered up-thread), that cutting taxes for the "job creators" will benefit the folks at the bottom, because the job creators are going to use that windfall to create great jobs. Instead, they spend money on politicians assuring they're not taxed on significant portions of their income, that they're not prevented from transferring wealth uphill through predatory practices in the finance and other industries, and that those at the very bottom, earning minimum wage, don't see anything like the wage growth the folks at the top have. As those folks at the top have seen their incomes increase by double digits in recent years, the federal minimum wage has increased by 0.0% in the last decade. Adjusted for inflation, minimum wage is actually worth $1.90 per hour less than it was the last time minimum wage was raised in 2009. So when someone starts tossing around figures to claim the top 1% are so much more burdened now, it's a bunch of fluff. Those folks are not hurting. The people who work full time and still can't afford a place to live? They're not doing so well.
Here's graph showing the top marginal tax rate and total share of the tax burden from 1986 to 2016. You will find that most historic data of this kind stops at 1986. That's because of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, that makes comparing data from earlier years not correlating 1 to 1.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxreformact1986.asp
https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-tax-rate/
Even though the top marginal tax rate was 50% in 1986 and dropped to 37% in 2016, the 1% total burden of the income tax collected went from 25% to 39%. This shows that the lowering of the top marginal tax rate did not result in less taxes collected from the 1%. And this is only Fed income taxes. Unless they live in a State with no State income tax, they can be expected to pay another 8% to 12% of their income in State income taxes.
The 1% did not go from paying 25% of the total income taxes collected in 1986 to 40% in 2016, because the government raised their taxes. And remember, they are now paying 40% of the $2T in total income taxes collected. While in 1986, they were only paying 25% of the $380B total income taxes collected. The government did this by disallowing deductions and closing loopholes that the 1% were using to lower their taxable income.
This sound like paying their "fair share" to me. Of course I'm not using the liberal meaning of "fair share". Which would be ...... "more .... much more."
The "Golden Age" of the rich paying their "fair share" in taxes was not in the 60's, it occurring now.